I just read an article on espn.com (http://espn.go.com/rpm/wc/2001/0304/1128249.html) that says the family got a temporary injuction against releasing Dale Earnhardts autopsy photo's. The law in Florida says autopsy photo's are public record unless they are part of a criminal investigation. So why would the Judge block these photo's being released? He says the reason being they have no "bona fide newsworthiness". Which I agree, however if the law says they are public record, they are public record. Some local news reporter requested the photo's BTW. The only thing I am a little confused about, is whether or not you need a reason to have the photo's. I would imagine so but I am not sure (assuming the reason was for "news" which explains the judges denial explanation). It's a tough call. What do you guys think?

------------------
Jeff
'88 GT t-top 3.4
Baltimore, MD

Would YOU want pictures from the morgue of YOUR recently deceased family member spread all over the newspapers?
There is no reason to let the news-maggots have the pictures.
Nothing constructive or worthwhile would come of it except to make the news media more money.
Let Earnhardt rest in peace.

I agree, there no reason for them to be released to anyone....period. Im sure they take photos at all of them, just in case something would go to court. For example if Theresa would try to sue Simson Safety Equip., they would be very important evidence.

I don't think they should release the photo's. Even if they are public record, they'll be plastered all over the news and printed material. I don't feel that people want to remember Dale by his autopsy photo's, They want to remember him as the race champion he was.

The news media is truely a virus ... spreading to whatever it can get its hands on to promote itself.

IMO, autopsy photos should NOT be public record.

There are some things that just should not be a public display. NOBODY's autopsy pictures should be public domain. That is just sad that someone would even request that they be published.

i'm a journalism major at the university of minnesota (a program that's ranked 4th in the nation) and i understand why the reporter asked for the photos: because he/she is a worthless human being. regardless of whether autopsy photos are public record, they are not and should not be part of the public eye. the law wasn't written so that any joe (my apologies to anyone named joe) off the street can get a lookie at the intimidator's grey matter. they're there so that should something happen where that sort of evidence is necessary for a study or something, it's accessible. like i said, i'm a journalism major, but the more i learn about the industry, the more i dispise it. there are some things that are just none of anyone's business, no matter how much reporters bellow about "freedom of the press." they call it the "media circus" because it is just that- a bunch of freaks trying to show people things that they don't- or at least shouldn't- want to see. but the public has to consider one thing before they ridicule the media for showing things like dale's autopsy: we wouldn't publish it if you didn't read it. media is an industry, just like any other. there is a demand- thus, there is a product. if you want to regulate the media, dont look at the things they show you if you don't like them. tell others not to pay attention as well. i think that whomever it is that's asking for dale's autopsy photos should be ASHAMED of themselves. how does seeing those photos affect ANY aspect of your life? it's insignificant. but some people want to see them, just like they probably turn their heads and gawk at the scene of an accident. i hope i never become a journalist with no integrity, like the reporter mentioned in the other post, but i also hope that i never become a human being with such a morbid curiosity that i would want to see such photos. if i ever did, i would need a psychologist more than i would need a press pass...

------------------
allow me to show you my exhaust pipes...

In the military, just because I have a security clearance, doesn't mean I have the "Need to Know", therefore, no access to that information, clearance be damned. (Also known as "None of Your Damn Business").

In this case, does John Q. Public have the Need to Know? I think not.

It's a shame,but there are people that have the kind of mentality that need something like that.Some go to races,sporting events,etc.just to see the blood.There is a prison rodeo in(I think)La.that has as it's only contestants the prisoners.In an interview with a few of the audience members they said they were there for the blood and seemed proud of it.THAT'S SICK!Most were there to enjoy a sporting event.

I agree with what has been said before. All this news paper is trying to to is scam some free publicity. One of our great racing heros is dead. Although he was a very public figure, he enjoyed his family privacy. If it were YOUR loved one, whould you want to publicly display photos of the mangled, bloody corpse? I think not.

What Teresa Earnhardt asked the judge to do is to compromise. Allow public viewing of the photos (like the law says) but not to allow copies so that some scum-rag could profit from Dale's death. Why should the family have to continue the emotional stress of lossing thier husband and father because of a bunch of blood thursty sick-o's?

filthyscarecrow - This is not the case of one reporter. It's the Orlando Sentinal! The only way to keep these types of low life scum rakers from this type of behavior is to boycott their publication. Money talks and I say to hit them in the wallet.

Roy

If the pres of today had existed 2000 years ago, there would have been autopsy photos of Jesus Christ...assuming they had a chance to get them in the three day window...

They dont need the Autopsy photos.....the sick ass bastards!! Leave the guy alone.

They said they wanted them to investgate the reason of death..(Seat belt).. That should be up to the family to investgate NOT the media...BASTARDS!!

------------------



PFF Members Photo Page

Photopoint Gallery (Updated Weekly)

I agree with most all the above but I expected pictures of Dales autopsy when I clicked on this thread.

From the tone of the posts I guess I'm the only morbid member, the rest of you seem to have clicked on out of humanitarian reasons, obviously knowing there are no pics here.

I agree with Haze.
That is just plain sick!

I was also expecting to see photo's...hehe.

Not sure if you noticed but I put the question mark symbol next to the title so people wouldn't expect the actual pictures.
I forget when the hearing is but its coming up soon.

There is actual reasoning behind the availability of autopsy photos. Let's say you're doing research on saftey helmets. You can find alot of information about which helmets failed and why because of those autopsy reports. Anyone see the movie 'Tucker'? where he shows the pics from car crashes to promote the sales of his new saftey devices (seat belts, saftey glass, etc) w/o that graphical representation, he most likely wouldn't have gotten the contract and it could have been even longer before detroit's rolling steal came with saftey equipment. As for the Dale Earheart photos and the press, that is just tasteless, but to people doing research on safer seatbelts, and restraint systems, that information could save lives.

the issue isnt weather or not they should be released. if they were to be released its your own choice to view them. that choice is your personal freedom. the law says they are public record. that means they have to be able to be viewed by whom ever wants to see them.

it is the law that u get a ticket for speeding. if u r doing 1 mph over & get a ticket u may not think you should get it but its the law.

its your right to own a gun.. if u choose not to u r exercising your personal freedom.

i think they should be released.

Indeed, they are public record. Then if you want to see them, you should have to drive to the courthouse, go through the metal detector (like everyone else) and be able to personally view the pictures, then leave empty handed and not be able to remove any of the photos or make copies of them. Since that will not happen, the photos should remain private.

UPDATE:
http://espn.go.com/rpm/wc/2001/0308/1139351.html

Seems some guy claims to have the photo's or something. Sounds suspicious.

VERY well said, Cooter...